What's this, I only saw today that Chicago isn't included in the shortlist, and places like Nashville (!) and Tampa are . Makes no sense to me. It isn't all about the number of people you can put in a stadium, it's also about showing your country to the world and giving the fans and players a great time. Not including one of the best cities in the bid is absolutely strange.

Looking at the list, the only city in the MidWest that's on the shortlist is Indianapolis... Also verys trange. No Minneapolis, Detroit, Chicago, St Louis...? And what's the thought behind including Cotton Bowl in Dallas in the short list, since they'll always pick Cowboys Stadium over that?

What's this, I only saw today that Chicago isn't included in the shortlist, and places like Nashville (!) and Tampa are . Makes no sense to me. It isn't all about the number of people you can put in a stadium, it's also about showing your country to the world and giving the fans and players a great time. Not including one of the best cities in the bid is absolutely strange.

Looking at the list, the only city in the MidWest that's on the shortlist is Indianapolis... Also verys trange. No Minneapolis, Detroit, Chicago, St Louis...? And what's the thought behind including Cotton Bowl in Dallas in the short list, since they'll always pick Cowboys Stadium over that?

Look back in the thread, it's all there. Chicago isn't in the bid because the city wasn't willing to make the financial guarantee necessary to host.

what else does Chicago have to show the world? This isn't China where we'll spend billions just to make it look like we've made it. Host the games and host them right. Indy is the midwest city with the right venue and plenty of big event experience. The Cotton Bowl has hosted, has the field, and has the city's desire to renovate even further if its chosen because of its competition from Cowboys Stadium. I don't necessarily look at it as Cotton vs Cowboys either. If you put the two DFW venues with Houston, then you have a very easy to travel pod location.

what else does Chicago have to show the world? This isn't China where we'll spend billions just to make it look like we've made it. Host the games and host them right. Indy is the midwest city with the right venue and plenty of big event experience. The Cotton Bowl has hosted, has the field, and has the city's desire to renovate even further if its chosen because of its competition from Cowboys Stadium. I don't necessarily look at it as Cotton vs Cowboys either. If you put the two DFW venues with Houston, then you have a very easy to travel pod location.

It would be an embarrassment for a city of Chicago's caliber to be overlooked and a city of Indy's caliber, not even in the same league as Chicago, or New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco for that matter, be chosen.

It would be an embarrassment for a city of Chicago's caliber to be overlooked and a city of Indy's caliber, not even in the same league as Chicago, or New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco for that matter, be chosen.

As I've said all along, some are talking about showing the world something with world class cities. I'm sorry, but the US has hosted the World Cup. It has hosted the Olympics multiple times. This is not about cities. The US has been there and done that. This needs to be about hosting the best WC as possible. Yes, Chicago is bigger and has a more impressive skyline than Indianapolis. It has an extensive train network and world class museums and hotels. But if you're talking about hosting a sporting event, Indy has a huge history:

1.) Indy 500 annually(world's largest single day sporting event by attendance)
2.) Brickyard 400 annually(second largest)
3.) Hosted the Formula 1 US Grand Prix for most of the 2000s
4.) Has hosted the Final Four multiple times including this year
5.) Will host the 2012 Super Bowl
6.) Has the superior venue to what Chicago can throw out unless Chicago has something new.

Now let's look at who is left

The cities you list as better than Indy are all alive except for San Francisco and Chicago. Where in San Francisco are they going to play? Do you want to win the bid or not. We need stadiums, not skylines.

To bad Lambeau Field was eliminated from hosting a match or two. The upper midwest is getting shafted with this plan. IMHO
But I'm still rooting for the good ol' US of A to get one of the games.
USA! USA! USA! USA!

The US bid seems to have an hispanic accent with Miami and Dallas which would be important, bid cities in seven states with lots of latinos and bid commitees members close with latinos (Oscar de la Hoya, Donna Shalala, Univision CEO, governor of California, ...).

The cities you list as better than Indy are all alive except for San Francisco and Chicago. Where in San Francisco are they going to play? Do you want to win the bid or not. We need stadiums, not skylines.

You act as if this World Cup is happening next summer. This is 12 years down the road...all these cities will have new stadiums built. FIFA knows this already. And I don't necessarily agree that Indy's stadium is that much better than Chicago's. In 12 years, they'll be about the same, Indy's just has a roof..whoopee. If I was a fan or player and heard my team got drawn into an Indy game, I'd probably say "f***, where the hell is that?" I'd be even more pissed once I actually landed in the middle of a cow pasture. Boring. We want this to have an epic impact on our soccer legacy.

You act as if this World Cup is happening next summer. This is 12 years down the road...all these cities will have new stadiums built. FIFA knows this already. And I don't necessarily agree that Indy's stadium is that much better than Chicago's. In 12 years, they'll be about the same, Indy's just has a roof..whoopee. If I was a fan or player and heard my team got drawn into an Indy game, I'd probably say "f***, where the hell is that?" I'd be even more pissed once I actually landed in the middle of a cow pasture. Boring. We want this to have an epic impact on our soccer legacy.

Says who. San Fran has been trying to get a stadium for years.

And as much as I love Soldier Field, Lucas Oil Stadium is exactly what FIFA wants. It has a roof and that roof can close, it can fit the largest width field. Whoopee? Read FIFA's stadium suggestions. The new stadiums like Phoenix, Dallas, Houston and Indy are where they want to be.

Sounds like you are just arrogant about cities. As I posted earlier, Indy has huge experience with large national and international sporting events. Can Indy accomodate the people? Yes. Can they get drunk in Indy? Yes. Can they get to and from Indy? Yes. Is it close enough to other large metros that fans can travel to see matches? Yes. No offense to any city out there, but there have been non-spectacular locals with far lesser stadiums to host matches than Indy. Indy will be just fine.

The thing is, I don't see you complaining about Dallas. I live in Dallas, but its no Milan or Shanghai. Its certainly no San Francisco or Miami. Its basically a suburb of near 7,000,000 people with a few urban amenities. From a business perspective its certainly international, but that's it. Are you embarrassed of Dallas hosting again?

Well if the Bay Area doesn't pony up for a stadium, they won't get to host. Simple enough.

Maybe I was a little harsh on Indy, it's a fine American city. But if it were me, and this is just me, I'd simply prefer to have Chicago as one of my host cities. Indiana is basketball country. And this may come across as racist, but Indy really is too white. Not a fan of KC or Nashville either for this reason. Soccer is a sport enjoyed by people of many different races and cultures, and Chicago offers this in terms of its population and cultural diversity. It truly is an international city in every sense of the word.

Chicago also has the infrastructure, i.e. people can fly in from all over the world. People would be very confused as to why they have to fly into Chicago and then get on a puddle jumper just to get to their next Midwestern city (especially if they've already had a connecting flight into to one of the major airports on their home continent). Why not keep it simple and just stick the game in Chicago? For people following their team back and forth across the country and having to travel long distances in order to do so, direct flights are key. Smaller airports have much higher airfares, smaller availability, and less flexible flight schedules. Chicago has flights going in and out all day. Has nothing to do with skylines.

I'm not necessarily saying "don't have it in Indy", I just disagree with having it in KC/Indy IN LIEU of Chicago. To me these small cities don't offer much that LA, Seattle, Boston, etc. don't already have. So I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a host city when it's all said and done. And for the record, I really don't care what FIFA says they prefer in their handbook, I'm merely stating what I would do if I were in charge of organizing the biggest sporting event in the world.

Well, look, I have my doubts about whether the sport can really be a fit for this country. After the experience of the NASL and the slow growth of MLS, it is obvious that the most wild optimism about breaking through hasn't yet materialized and may not materialize in the near future. Still, the sport no longer has a stigma of being "too foreign" as it has become accepted in certain (relative) affluent areas of the country, where the influence is amplified, not to mention the foreign-born population. That in of itself is a big victory. No longer can the big so-called opinion-makers safely ignore the sport, even if it is in a negative tone. For every Jim Rome, who completely dismisses it altogether, there's a J.P. Dellacamera and a (yes, I'll say it!) Max Bretos, who at least is willing to cheerlead for the sport, even at the risk of annoying the rest of us. The sport is settling into what I see is a comfortable niche. There are dedicated cable channels in English and Spanish that show exclusively or majorly the sport. And, according to what I read, more Premiership games are available for viewing here than the country of its origin. How's that for irony?

With all that said, something about the current geopolitical situation tells me that we don't have a realistic shot, 2018 or 2022. At this point, FIFA no longer needs to tolerate stadia built for that other football, when there are nations who are willing to host to the point of suspending their own national sport to host the matches. While that's not really an issue here, it goes to show the importance other nations give to soccer, as opposed to here, where it is just another big show to many folk.

It comes down to whether we are more big event fans or true soccer fans.

That Host City map had 18 cities. You only need 12 staiums so no doubt the list will drop many of them. The US has a strong id , but needs more Fotball legacy in it, which is where other bids are working on. Its hard though, as Australia has found out, to build new stadiums just for one event, only to be scaled down to make them viable. Build too many new stadiums and all you get is White elephants.

Well if the Bay Area doesn't pony up for a stadium, they won't get to host. Simple enough.

Maybe I was a little harsh on Indy, it's a fine American city. But if it were me, and this is just me, I'd simply prefer to have Chicago as one of my host cities. Indiana is basketball country. And this may come across as racist, but Indy really is too white. Not a fan of KC or Nashville either for this reason. Soccer is a sport enjoyed by people of many different races and cultures, and Chicago offers this in terms of its population and cultural diversity. It truly is an international city in every sense of the word.

Chicago also has the infrastructure, i.e. people can fly in from all over the world. People would be very confused as to why they have to fly into Chicago and then get on a puddle jumper just to get to their next Midwestern city (especially if they've already had a connecting flight into to one of the major airports on their home continent). Why not keep it simple and just stick the game in Chicago? For people following their team back and forth across the country and having to travel long distances in order to do so, direct flights are key. Smaller airports have much higher airfares, smaller availability, and less flexible flight schedules. Chicago has flights going in and out all day. Has nothing to do with skylines.

I'm not necessarily saying "don't have it in Indy", I just disagree with having it in KC/Indy IN LIEU of Chicago. To me these small cities don't offer much that LA, Seattle, Boston, etc. don't already have. So I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a host city when it's all said and done. And for the record, I really don't care what FIFA says they prefer in their handbook, I'm merely stating what I would do if I were in charge of organizing the biggest sporting event in the world.

You're still not giving Indy enough credit. You mention its size and racial makeup, but leave out the fact that sporting events of several hundred thousand spectators something they deal with annually. They should have as much sport hosting acumen as any city outside maybe LA. Final Four, Indy 500, FIFA World Basketball Championships, Brickyard 400, MotoGP USGP, Former site of Formula 1's USGP. If Indy has the venue(they do) they are natural hosts, because they do it on a regular basis.

You can ignore what FIFA prefers, but they've been doing the World Cup for a long time. They know what they do and do not care about.

@The Game Is Up

You realize the US hosted in 1994? Its not a matter of fitting. If the World Cup comes again, it will again be the most attended in history. Its already been proven that high caliber soccer and the best players draw big crowds in the US.

Also the venues are already here. There's no need to build new. FIFA officials already like NFL venues, as the NFL has far more strict regulations for things like handicap access, lighting, press area, etc that have grown strictly out of competition. The only issues are field size for some venues, and that's a big some as modern venues do have wide enough field trays AND media roof coverage, which while visiting Cowboys Stadium they exclaimed there was easily enough press room in the press boxes.

The issue for the US to submit a winning bid is putting butts in the seats and choosing cities that can make things run smoothly and accomodate guests. Do things right and you win, otherwise you sleepwalk and add just the biggest cities and you get your ass handed to you by the Aussies or one of the other bidding nations. Please do things right.

They, as you say, may like NFL stadiums but in 90% of those cases, where is the football legacy?

That also comes into it. Having a highly attended event but with limited effects afterward for the games is not the desired outcome. What FIFA want is a long lasting effect on the game, bringing in more fans and more corporate support into the sport.

They, as you say, may like NFL stadiums but in 90% of those cases, where is the football legacy?

That also comes into it. Having a highly attended event but with limited effects afterward for the games is not the desired outcome. What FIFA want is a long lasting effect on the game, bringing in more fans and more corporate support into the sport.

There is more to an event than having stadiums.

The football legacy is the occasional soccer game. They're only proposing their large NFL stadiums due to capacity, modern amenities and such, things (in particular capacity) that the smaller Soccer Specific Stadiums don't provide.

FIFA know this and accept this fact. That's what they did in 1994, even with pretty much none of the Soccer Specific Stadiums in place.

The legacy from 1994 is there, the US bid is based on reminding the world the legacy of 1994, with presenting a financially viable WC.

To be honest, the huge North American market is just too much for FIFA to ignore, even if legacy is lacking (heck one could argue that Australia's bid is sort of lacking in legacy, but let's not go there). If there's a huge profit to be made, then FIFA will surely bow to the US, if FIFA were in dire straits right now, then it's almost hard to think that they'd say no.

That being said, I still hope Tampa's stadium is selected should the unlikely chance of a US World Cup. I'd just love for that pirate ship to be dressed up for the event with the logo and such.